Part I – Corporate Criminal Liability and Procedure Under the New KUHAP
Overview
On 2 January 2026, Indonesia formally entered a new era of criminal law enforcement with the simultaneous entry into force of:
➤ Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP), and
➤ Law No. 20 of 2025 on Criminal Procedural Law (KUHAP).
Together, these laws replace long-standing frameworks that had governed Indonesia’s substantive and procedural criminal law for decades. While much public attention has focused on controversial substantive provisions in the KUHP, the new KUHAP introduces equally far-reaching procedural reforms, particularly for corporations and their management.
This article provides a structured overview of the corporate-specific provisions of the new KUHAP, highlights how they differ from the previous regime under Law No. 8 of 1981, and outlines the practical implications for business actors operating in Indonesia.
1. Legislative Background and Ongoing Debate
The revised KUHP was passed by the House of Representatives (DPR) in December 2022 and promulgated in January 2023, with a delayed effective date of 2 January 2026. The revised KUHAP followed later, approved in November 2025 and promulgated in December 2025.
From its inception, the KUHAP reform process has drawn criticism from civil society and academic groups. A coalition of criminal law experts and civil society organizations has argued that:
- public participation during the drafting process was insufficient,
- key Constitutional Court standards on meaningful participation were not met, and
- implementing regulations required for full enforcement remain incomplete.
In response, the Ministry of Law has emphasized that the KUHP and KUHAP were the result of prolonged deliberations involving multiple stakeholders.
In early January 2026, the Ministry also provided an update on the status of pending implementing regulations, many of which remain under review or awaiting presidential approval.
Key takeaway: while the KUHAP is already in force, its practical application will continue to evolve as implementing regulations are finalized.
2. A Structural Shift: Corporations as Subjects of Criminal Procedure
2.1 Explicit Recognition of Corporate Criminal Liability
Under the previous KUHAP (Law 8/1981), corporate criminal liability was not expressly regulated. Enforcement relied heavily on Supreme Court Regulation No. 13 of 2016, which functioned as a stop-gap measure.
The new KUHAP eliminates this ambiguity by formally recognizing corporations as subjects of criminal procedure. A “corporation” is broadly defined to include both:
- Legal entities, such as limited liability companies (PT), foundations, cooperatives, BUMN/BUMD, and BUMDes; and
- Non-legal entities, including firms, CVs, and unincorporated associations.
Criminal liability may be imposed not only on the corporation itself, but also on Persons in Charge (PIC)—namely individuals who manage, control, or act on behalf of the corporation.
This framework aligns closely with the new KUHP, which extends liability to management, controllers, and beneficial owners acting within the scope of corporate activities.
Key takeaway: corporate exposure is now explicit, statutory, and procedurally enforceable—not merely inferred through judicial practice.
3. Transitional Rules: Which Law Applies?
To address ongoing cases, the Supreme Court issued Circular No. 1 of 2026, later reinforced by a circular from the Deputy Attorney General for General Crimes.
In simplified terms:
- Cases already under examination at trial continue under the old KUHAP (Law 8/1981).
- Cases submitted but not yet examined, as well as new cases, fall under the new KUHAP.
- Investigations not yet commenced at the time of enactment are generally subject to the new regime.
Key takeaway: corporations involved in ongoing or imminent investigations must urgently reassess their procedural position under the new KUHAP.
4. Corporate Representation in Criminal Proceedings
The KUHAP now clearly regulates how corporations are summoned and examined.
- Corporations are represented through their designated PIC.
- Summonses must be addressed to the PIC and delivered formally.
- If a corporation refuses to appoint a PIC, or if the PIC ignores lawful summonses, investigators may:
⮕ reissue summonses, and
⮕ apply coercive measures to compel attendance.
Key takeaway: failure to cooperate procedurally is no longer a safe or neutral strategy—it may escalate enforcement measures against corporate representatives.
5. Coercive Measures: Expanded Powers, Clearer Rules
One of the most consequential aspects of the new KUHAP is the formal expansion and codification of coercive measures applicable during investigations.
These include:
- designation of suspects,
- arrest and detention of PICs,
- searches and seizures (including electronic data),
- wiretapping and examination of correspondence,
- blocking of assets, bank accounts, and digital platforms, and
- travel bans.
While many of these powers existed in fragmented form under sectoral laws, the KUHAP now provides a unified procedural basis, along with time limits and judicial oversight.
Notably, blocking and travel bans, which previously relied on indirect legal bases, are now expressly regulated as coercive measures under criminal procedure law.
Key takeaway: corporate risk exposure now includes financial, digital, and mobility restrictions at early procedural stages.
6. Digitalization of Criminal Procedure
The KUHAP places strong emphasis on technology-based enforcement, including:
➤ mandatory audiovisual recording of examinations, and
➤ expanded use of digital forensics and technical investigative assistance.
These measures aim to strengthen evidentiary integrity, but they also significantly increase the data footprint and traceability of criminal proceedings involving corporations.
Key takeaway: compliance failures may now leave a permanent digital evidentiary trail, reinforcing the importance of early legal strategy.
7. Trial, Penalties, and Enforcement Against Corporations
Under the new KUHAP:
⮕ corporations may be prosecuted even after mergers, restructurings, or dissolutions;
⮕ penalties are limited to fines and additional penalties, rather than imprisonment; and
⮕ unpaid fines may result in court-authorized seizure and auction of corporate assets.
This reflects a clear policy choice: corporations are to be punished financially and structurally, while individuals face personal criminal sanctions.
Key takeaway: corporate restructuring is not a shield against criminal liability.
8. Expanded Pretrial Review (Praperadilan)
The scope of pretrial review has been significantly broadened.
Corporations may now challenge:
- designation as a suspect,
- searches, seizures, wiretapping, blocking, and travel bans,
- unjustified delays, and
- unlawful evidence-gathering methods.
Judges are empowered to declare evidence inadmissible if obtained unlawfully and to order corrective measures.
Key takeaway: pretrial proceedings have become a central defensive tool for corporations under investigation.
9. Summonses, Indictments, and Corporate Identity
The KUHAP introduces strict formal requirements for:
- serving summonses at a corporation’s registered address, and
- drafting indictments that clearly identify the corporate defendant, its legal status, management structure, and alleged conduct.
Procedural defects may now have substantive consequences.
Key takeaway: corporate housekeeping matters—articles of association, registered addresses, management records—have direct criminal-law relevance.
10. Restorative Justice for Corporations
Beyond punitive enforcement, the KUHAP allows for restorative justice mechanisms, including for corporate offenders, provided certain conditions are met (e.g. first-time offense, restitution, corrective measures).
While details await implementing regulations, this signals a more flexible enforcement philosophy in appropriate cases.
Key takeaway: early remediation and cooperation may materially affect outcomes.
Conclusion
The new KUHAP represents a fundamental recalibration of Indonesia’s criminal justice system as it applies to corporations.
For the first time, corporate criminal procedure is comprehensively regulated at the statutory level, closing long-standing gaps and significantly expanding enforcement tools.
However, real-world impact will depend on:
- the completion of implementing regulations,
- enforcement capacity and consistency, and
- corporate readiness to adapt to the new procedural landscape.
For business actors, the message is clear: criminal procedure risk is now a core compliance issue, not a remote or theoretical concern.
How Seven Stones Indonesia Can Assist
The new KUHAP significantly reshapes corporate exposure within Indonesia’s criminal justice system, requiring businesses to adopt a more structured and proactive approach to procedural compliance and risk management.
Seven Stones Indonesia provides strategic advisory support to corporations, investors, and management teams in navigating this transition, including:
✔️ Corporate criminal risk assessment, including identification of Persons in Charge (PIC), controllers, and activities exposed to liability under the KUHP and KUHAP;
✔️ Procedural readiness reviews, covering corporate documentation, governance structures, and response protocols in the event of investigations, summonses, or indictments;
✔️ Investor and management advisory, particularly for foreign shareholders, directors, and commissioners, addressing personal exposure, travel restrictions, asset-blocking risks, and digital evidence considerations;
✔️ Pretrial and enforcement strategy support, including coordination with licensed legal counsel and assistance in evaluating remedial and restorative-justice options where applicable.
Through a compliance-driven and business-oriented approach, Seven Stones Indonesia assists clients in anticipating procedural risk, strengthening internal governance, and responding effectively to Indonesia’s evolving criminal enforcement framework.